dcs18 Posted February 13, 2018 Author Share Posted February 13, 2018 Change of heart? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Undertaker Posted February 13, 2018 Share Posted February 13, 2018 I use a customised version addon for myself and as per my needs, not everyone will favour the way like I do. And frankly if gone wrong, you would be just duplicating the effort. I already explain how I like to use this combo in past couple of pages somewhere. No change of heart and no problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcs18 Posted February 13, 2018 Author Share Posted February 13, 2018 2 hours ago, Undertaker said: 2 hours ago, dcs18 said: The script doesn't reflect on the add-on filtering log either, for me:— That's fine. And by design, it shouldn't. Great, now that you agree the script (https://local.adguard.com/adguard-ajax-api/injections/content-script.js) shouldn't appear on the logs by default, let's move on to the more relevant part. On 2/11/2018 at 2:05 PM, Undertaker said: All I'm saying is show me an example where the program is blocking 'more' requests(other than the HTML-type) than the addon. Backup/disable all your rules (including your subscribed filter/s, if any) and then use just the one single rule:— ://$other Next, go to the following homepage and take a screenshot of the page (not, of your logs) — use this test with the standalone add-on and the program, as well:— https://www.youtube.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Undertaker Posted February 14, 2018 Share Posted February 14, 2018 OK I see now, what you're trying to say. And I agree that with that rule it is blocking more, but at the same time it increases the work, getting site to work. But I get the granularity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcs18 Posted February 14, 2018 Author Share Posted February 14, 2018 4 hours ago, Undertaker said: OK I see now, what you're trying to say. And I agree that with that rule it is blocking more, but at the same time it increases the work, getting site to work. OK, glad we're on the same page . . . . . . . on this matter, too. Now, that I've started from scratch on AdGuard and Firefox, there's anyways plenty of work to do (for me) and that does not faze me so long as it's just a one time proposition (per site.) The one and only one reason why I made that life-changing decision to switch-over to AdGuard (for myself and for all my clients, as well) was that it blocked more than my uBlock + uMatrix combo (despite the fact that I had to give-up on, a great deal of ease-of-use and granularity.) 4 hours ago, Undertaker said: But I get the granularity. Please do demonstrate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Undertaker Posted February 14, 2018 Share Posted February 14, 2018 I meant I get(understood) the level of granularity you're trying to achieve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Undertaker Posted February 14, 2018 Share Posted February 14, 2018 For 2-3 weeks starting tomorrow, I would be in a passive mode. I may visit nSane only once a day and that too not for any discussion. Will be working out on something on a personal front. But after that, I'll be back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WALLONN7 Posted February 14, 2018 Share Posted February 14, 2018 2 minutes ago, Undertaker said: For 2-3 weeks starting tomorrow, I would be in a passive mode. I may visit nSane only once a day and that too not for any discussion. Will be working out on something on a personal front. But after that, I'll be back. Have all success in this endeavor!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcs18 Posted February 14, 2018 Author Share Posted February 14, 2018 On 7/14/2017 at 11:18 PM, dcs18 said: Heads-up:— Have noticed that the Secure rules option-box on the latest version of Windows Firewall Control (WFC) tends to disable itself — it does not seem to occur though, when Windows Firewall Control (WFC) is left locked with a password. Have resolved this issue, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vhick Posted February 15, 2018 Share Posted February 15, 2018 Hi, It is possible to block ip ranges in adguard? if its possible, how? (I'm not so geek to do that ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcs18 Posted February 15, 2018 Author Share Posted February 15, 2018 14 minutes ago, vhick said: Hi, It is possible to block ip ranges in adguard? Oh yes. 14 minutes ago, vhick said: if its possible, how? (I'm not so geek to do that ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vhick Posted February 15, 2018 Share Posted February 15, 2018 27 minutes ago, dcs18 said: Oh yes. Hi @dcs18, I see the ip rules per ip but not ranges. What is the proper rules for ip range? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcs18 Posted February 15, 2018 Author Share Posted February 15, 2018 Ah, fine point vhick — unfortunately, don't think AdGuard can handle anything other than very specific IPs (unlike other modifiers, the $network modifier seems to be very limited.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vhick Posted February 15, 2018 Share Posted February 15, 2018 23 minutes ago, dcs18 said: Ah, fine point vhick — unfortunately, don't think AdGuard can handle anything other than very specific IPs (unlike other modifiers, the $network modifier seems to be very limited.) Thank you for immediate reply sir @dcs18, No worries. I just minimized my running/installed program and I though Adguard can handle those things. I greatly appreciate your time and effort Sir Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ecarion Posted February 15, 2018 Share Posted February 15, 2018 On 2/12/2018 at 5:56 AM, dcs18 said: [...] I'm pleased to see more of you guys using uMatrix, too — it was my fav. ad. blocker until Undertaker convinced me to switch to AdGuard. One day perhaps I will try AdGuard. On 2/12/2018 at 9:31 AM, Undertaker said: [...] There is not even a single request of media-type coming from googlevideo.com and secondly, my video is not playing at all, in default size, in expanded size or in full screen. Pardon @Undertaker but as you can see on this picture, I don't understand how it could be ? In fact, the request are made by googlevideo.com since a few years ago. Because I can't recall exactly but I had create this Umatrix rules almost 2 years ago. And about the xhr, I didn't made a mistake. Because once it was enable, right before the 2nd video I had see many of this kind of ads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcs18 Posted February 16, 2018 Author Share Posted February 16, 2018 GBWhatsApp is now 6.20. GBWhatsApp is now 6.25. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcs18 Posted February 18, 2018 Author Share Posted February 18, 2018 DD-WRT is now 3.0-r35034. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Undertaker Posted February 19, 2018 Share Posted February 19, 2018 AdGuard Nightly Builds https://github.com/AdguardTeam/AdguardKnowledgeBase/blob/nightly-builds/pages/02.general/13.adguard-beta-testing-program/docs.en.md#nightly-builds Quote Nightly builds are special builds available for AdGuard for Windows and AdGuard for Android. They are updated every three days and contain the most recent changes made by developers. If you decide to install a Nightly build, be ready to face occasional bugs and unexpected behavior (and feel free to report them). You can download Nightly builds at these links: setup.exe or https://agrd.io/windows_nightly — for AdGuard for Windows; adguard.apk or https://agrd.io/android_nightly — for AdGuard for Android. Needs to be mentioned that apps for other platforms do not have Nightly builds yet, but we plan on introducing them later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Undertaker Posted February 19, 2018 Share Posted February 19, 2018 @vhick @dcs18 You can block IP ranges in AG using regular expressions Try it, otherwise I will explain when I'm back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcs18 Posted February 19, 2018 Author Share Posted February 19, 2018 Prefer to stay away from RegEx — they are slow, by nature (would like to see a match-up, with WFC though.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcs18 Posted February 20, 2018 Author Share Posted February 20, 2018 On 2/19/2018 at 12:06 AM, dcs18 said: DD-WRT is now 3.0-r35034. For me, this firmware release caused a drop in connectivity in both — LAN and Wi-Fi, as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcs18 Posted February 22, 2018 Author Share Posted February 22, 2018 On 6/19/2017 at 9:14 PM, sledge101 said: A TUTORIAL ON HOW TO ACTIVATE IDM USING "Simple DNSCrypt" Heard about the introduction of the x64-bit Simple DNSCrypt and decided to take it for a spin — was pleasantly surprised to find that it has now been completely revamped. You might want to update your tutorial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcs18 Posted February 23, 2018 Author Share Posted February 23, 2018 On 6/30/2017 at 7:49 PM, dcs18 said: On 6/30/2017 at 8:13 PM, Undertaker said: Yes, Adguard IP blocking is faster than WFC IP blocking. Infact, Adguard IP blocking is faster than even its own Domain blocking capabilities. In that case, how about (Acrylic DNS + WFC + Adguard) — want to know whether Adguard blocks (IPs) ahead of WFC. Just a heads up — Simple DNSCrypt blocks blacklisted IDM domains before Windows Firewall Control (WFC) and even ahead of AdGuard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Undertaker Posted February 24, 2018 Share Posted February 24, 2018 On 2/16/2018 at 3:07 AM, Ecarion said: Pardon @Undertaker but as you can see on this picture, I don't understand how it could be ? @Ecarion Please update to the latest version and then post the screenshot again. On 2/19/2018 at 11:27 PM, dcs18 said: Prefer to stay away from RegEx — they are slow, by nature (would like to see a match-up, with WFC though.) AdGuard even with RegEx was still the first to block when compared with IP ranges in Windows Firewall. 15 hours ago, dcs18 said: Simple DNSCrypt blocks blacklisted IDM domains before Windows Firewall Control (WFC) and even ahead of AdGuard. I expected that because Simple DNSCrypt uses particular domain rules, even in AdGuard particular domain rule is faster than a generalised domain rule. E.g. ||www.internetdownloadmanager.com will always be faster than ||*internetdownloadmanager.com Same case is in IPs and RegEx. What about IP blocking in Simple DNSCrypt, has it fixed it? How does it compare to AdGuard? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcs18 Posted February 24, 2018 Author Share Posted February 24, 2018 5 hours ago, Undertaker said: 20 hours ago, dcs18 said: Just a heads up — Simple DNSCrypt blocks blacklisted IDM domains before Windows Firewall Control (WFC) and even ahead of AdGuard. I expected that because Simple DNSCrypt uses particular domain rules, even in AdGuard particular domain rule is faster than a generalised domain rule. E.g. ||www.internetdownloadmanager.com will always be faster than ||*internetdownloadmanager.com Same case is in IPs and RegEx. The actual reason why Simple DNSCrypt blocks blacklisted IDM domains before Windows Firewall Control (WFC) and even ahead of AdGuard, is the fact that it operates at a level deeper than either Windows Firewall Control (WFC) or AdGuard — Simple DNSCrypt is present right at the very entry-point of the Network Adapter. 5 hours ago, Undertaker said: What about IP blocking in Simple DNSCrypt, has it fixed it? How does it compare to AdGuard? The IP Address Tabs on the all-new Simple DNSCrypt are present but greyed out — looks as though they're being re-coded, as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.